Not hiring smokers?

Sure it does!
Besides being retarded, smokers miss more work
Stink to high hell
And have crooked yellow teeth
That's scary to the public
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
To me it seems like the thin end of the wedge, if you smoke in your own time and it doesn't affect your work then it is nobody's business but your own. I speak as an ex-smoker.
Click to expand...

And I speak as someone who's never smoked and never will. I support smokers with everything, but if a restaurant wants to say no smokers (by choice, not by law) then go for it. If they want to make smoking mandatory, sure why not. If they say you have to come to work with a purple dildo in your mouth I won't say one thing against it(legally speaking).
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
And I speak as someone who's never smoked and never will. I support smokers with everything, but if a restaurant wants to say no smokers (by choice, not by law) then go for it. If they want to make smoking mandatory, sure why not. If they say you have to come to work with a purple dildo in your mouth I won't say one thing against it(legally speaking).
Click to expand...

In the UK, smoking is banned from all public premises. I thought that was true in the US as well.
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
And I speak as someone who's never smoked and never will. I support smokers with everything, but if a restaurant wants to say no smokers (by choice, not by law) then go for it. If they want to make smoking mandatory, sure why not. If they say you have to come to work with a purple dildo in your mouth I won't say one thing against it(legally speaking).
Click to expand...

So what if they start insisting that only teetotallers will be hired?
 
tekkychick said:
Although I don't smoke, and I don't like cigarettes or their smell and don't want to be near them, and though I am thrilled that in California there are very few public places where people are allowed to smoke....

I DON'T agree that businesses should be allowed to not hire someone simply because they smoke. If they do it on their own time, it's their business. Businesses can control what we do at work; they should not be able to dictate what we do outside of it. If we are doing the job we were hired for, that's all they should concern themselves about.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/28/pennsylvania-hospitals-ban-smokers-hiring_n_3517549.html
Click to expand...
Why not? We expect employers to pay a large part of an employees medical cost. A cost which right now averages in excess of 15% of a companies over head. There is no argument that employees who smoke contribute substantially to that cost for employers and their non smoking co-workers. If Employers are expected to bear that burden of cost for employess health care shouldn't they have the right to exclude persons who are going to contribute substantially to that cost through their behavior and choices that adversely impact their health and and thus diminish that companies bottom line and increase health care costs for their non smoking co-workers?
 
Threedee said:
:cig:
Click to expand...

tumblr_mp4h2bhc4H1r67ipro4_250.gif
 
tekkychick said:
Can carry it further - what if they only hire same sex couples because they tend to have fewer babies than heterosexual couples and thus will save them medical expenses?
Click to expand...

Fine with me!

We work harder than y'all breeders, dress sharper and our offices will be better decorated! Pfft!






**runs away and hides**
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
To me it seems like the thin end of the wedge, if you smoke in your own time and it doesn't affect your work then it is nobody's business but your own. I speak as an ex-smoker.
Click to expand...

Agreed! and I say this as someone who does not like to be around cigarette smoke.
 
tekkychick said:
They aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, gender and (in some states) sexual orientation. So no, they can't just hire or choose not to hire based on personal preference.

Today it's smoking; and many companies, of course, have drug tests. Tomorrow will they be watching what we eat, what we drink, whether we exercise, etc etc etc?
Click to expand...
Again, if they are bearing the cost for an employees health care then why shouldn't they? You can't have your cake and eat it to. That's just not rational.

For example, if you were my dependent and you were living in my home and I was paying for your health care then I would not permit you to smoke while you are my dependent.

When you foot the bill you have the right to do what ever you want. When someone else is footing the bill then by god they have rights too.
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
And I speak as someone who's never smoked and never will. I support smokers with everything, but if a restaurant wants to say no smokers (by choice, not by law) then go for it. If they want to make smoking mandatory, sure why not. If they say you have to come to work with a purple dildo in your mouth I won't say one thing against it(legally speaking).
Click to expand...

But what you aren't getting - LEGALLY businesses cannot discriminate based on race, gender, and (in a lot of cases) sexual orientation. We already restrict businesses from just hiring or serving who they want.

And restaurants aren't allowed to let smokers in. We do restrict.

You may feel that is wrong; but that's the law.

I'm just saying we don't need a new group of people - smokers -to be discriminated against in hiring - IF they only smoke in their private time.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why not? We expect employers to pay a large part of an employees medical cost. A cost which right now averages in excess of 15% of a companies over head. There is no argument that employees who smoke contribute substantially to that cost for employers and their non smoking co-workers. If Employers are expected to bear that burden of cost for employess health care shouldn't they have the right to exclude persons who are going to contribute substantially to that cost through their behavior and choices that adversely impact their health and and thus diminish that companies bottom line and increase health care costs for their non smoking co-workers?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope... people of child-bearing age are more likely to use insurance to have kids; older people more likely to have heart attacks or cancer; heavier people may have health issues. There are smokers who don't use much medical care until after they are retired. A young punk who goes riding motorcycles may use more of that insurance than the smoker will.
 
Professor Baxter said:
The freedom to choose is not necessarily about a choice between associating with everyone and or no one. It is about choosing your associates on a case by case basis. An employee has many potential employers and an employer has many potential employees to choose from.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I thought he was using the term in a broader context.

In any event: Isn't it great that you can choose between masters? It's almost like the slave trade, which as a defender of private property, you'd likely be defending at the time.
 
tekkychick said:
Can carry it further - what if they only hire same sex couples because they tend to have fewer babies than heterosexual couples and thus will save them medical expenses?
Click to expand...
The heterosexual couples will also provide a future pool of productive talent, by reproducing, thus negating that cost. So you're making a false equivelency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top